KanryDrago
-
Posts
1,184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by KanryDrago
-
-
Just now, Gadget Portal said:
Personal space violation:
Which as you know is total spoons
rl the person flying over cant look down and peer into your bedroom
sl they can
sl != rl
Scylla will be along to tell you off I am sure for equating rl and sl soon in 3....2.....1
-
10 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
Not pedantry, Kanry, but an important distinction. Rights are not the gift of the state; they are things we possess innately as humans.
Rights, including human rights, can of course be violated by the state -- and not infrequently are. That's why we have organizations like Amnesty International.
Its not a right if you cant enforce it simple as that. You can talk about human rights all you like but in reality they are merely a fiction to make people like you feel warm and fuzzy
-
4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
The only "right" that applies there is LL's, as proprietor.
While true this is totally misleading. The lab has limitations as to what it can do based on it not wanting to go out of business
You could equally say the Canadian government could pass a law saying all Canadian citizens must have a sex change. In theory yes they can. In practise if they did so they wouldn't be the canadian government for long I suspect
-
Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:
Yep, quite possibly -- maybe even probably -- so. Which is, as I say, why they likely won't do it.
Again, though. You don't have "rights."
You have certain tools and enhanced abilities to do things with a particular parcel of data and code. Whenever you talk about your "rights" you are conflating your use of this platform with the very real, legally-enforceable, set of rules that apply in RL. Those don't apply here. Only the TOS does. Real rights can't be arbitrarily removed by the state -- that's why they are called rights. Your access to this platform can be removed at anytime, quite arbitrarily, by LL.
sigh once again pedantry everyone knows what is meant by rights . That which is granted by the governing body
No one anywhere in reality has more than one right....the right to die. States can and do at whim remove other so called human rights whenever they please.
-
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
Quite possibly. You admit that this is your "feeling" only, and I don't have better access to the facts here: we can only hypothesize.
BUT -- and here is where I am really pretty close to something Solar has been saying (OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!) -- what you and I think doesn't matter, because any so-called "rights" that we supposedly possess are entirely superseded by the TOS, and the fact that LL can do whatever they want with their platform. And that includes deciding to restrict your ability to employ security measures on your "land."
Now, they have probably decided that to apply the kinds of restrictions that are now in force in Bellisseria to the mainland is a poor business decision, so I think they likely won't do it.
But again, the point is that all this talk of "rights" and "property" and "ownership" is, deep down, in essence, nonsense. You subscribe, at a slightly higher rate than others, to a service. And for that money you get extra tools and, well, let's call them "entitlements," shall we? You have no "rights" -- you have only such protections available to you as a consumer, and not specifically ruled out by the TOS that you agreed to.
Yes and the Lab is a company and they like me paying for those rights, if those rights change in ways you suggest I will walk away from my land as I suspect a lot of others would because we are no longer getting what we got the land for in the first place. I suspect if the lab even suggested changing it in the way you suggest the forum ruckus would dwarf any of those we have seen of late
-
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
I have nowhere argued that anyone should have access to your personal space, Selene.
What I am suggesting is that things like ban lines or poorly deployed and set security orbs make Second Life a less attractive and usable space for a reasonably sizable portion of their inhabitants. How sizable? I have no idea, but this is a sufficiently contentious subject whenever it arises that I'd suggest that it's not negligible.
The point I making is about the product. It has nothing to do with your "rights" or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that, in the case of Bellisseria certainly, and potentially eventually the mainland as a whole, LL has made a business decision based upon what they think makes their platform more attractive and appealing to a broader range of potential users. As Solar notes, their decision on Bellisseria may be based upon a faulty analysis: again, I have no idea. But the whole discussion of "rights" -- yours as a "property owner," and mine as a vehicle user -- entirely misrepresents what is actually going on here, and what is at stake. Rights have no bearing on the argument: what LL thinks will make SL "work better" does.
Vehicle users are a very small percentage of the user base compared to property "owners". That is my feeling however they are very vocal
-
I came for the information then stayed when I realised that never before had I stumbled into such a goldmine of "People who are wrong on the internet"
-
1
-
4
-
-
2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
Well, sure. I said as much above too: we all use these terms as shorthand.
But language does matter. As in other forms of dog-whistle, the connotations of particular terms bears weight. If I call a group of people seeking asylum "refugees," I am implying some very different things about them than if I call them "illegals," for instance.
You do know this is a forum populated by other than americans? What may be "dog whistles" in your country aren't necessarily elsewhere so perhaps before accusing someone of "dogwhistling" you might want to bear that in mind.
Here having a sense of entitlement merely means someone demanding something they don't actually have any right to. In fact the term dogwhistling is actually something most here regard as a perjorative term in its own right as its usually used by people trying to shut down perfectly legitimate discussions that they don't want to happen. If you like the term dogwhistle is in itself a dogwhistle
-
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
I have not, in fact, suggested that you do.
I have suggested that those who use this kind of language -- "land," and "owner" and "property" and "rights" -- should reflect upon the implications, and accuracy, of those words.
And I've suggested that a more liberal application of so-called "rights" doesn't represent much of a real infringement of your own enjoyment of your land.
People dont use water tight legal language, yes most people understand when they say they own land that in fact they are renting off the labs and most people reading it understand what they mean. Its just deflection by pedantry and has no actual bearing on the merit or otherwise of the argument
As to "not much of a real infringement of your own enjoyment of your land" this is how you feel about the subject. Sorry but you have no right to try and tell other people how they should feel about it. Your opinion of infringement and how much it is impinging carries no more weight that anyone elses.
-
2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
That's certainly one of the things you've said, yes.
But you didn't "buy" it.
And you do not have absolute and unfettered "rights" over what you do with it.
Read your TOS!
Obviously I have to obey TOS I thought that was so blindingly obvious that it didnt need stating. Nowhere in TOS does it however say that I have to accomodate your wish to use my land for your own purposes.
There is no difference between any of the following pairs of statements
I am a child avatar and I shouldnt be allowed to be banned from you land because of it
I dont want child avatars on my land
I am a bloodlines player and I shouldnt be able to be banned from your land because I offer a bite to people
I dont like blood lines players they annoy me
I am a flier I should be able to fly over your land
I don't like people flying over my parcel as they can cam in on me when inside my boundaries
Most people including you would support the first two pairs. I don't see the third as in anyway different . You obviously do because its something you want to do.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
And I have not specifically accused you of doing so. In fact, I note that you do open up your land. And I ask whether you might not agree that there is an inconsistency in the use of this analogy.
I would note, however, that you keep using loaded terms such as "land" and "owner." Granted, we all do that as a sort of shorthand, and because, in our less critically-reflective moments, we like to pretend that this virtual world is just "like" RL in important ways. But my point is that the uncritical use of words like this implies certain highly doubtful things about what it is that you actually "own," and the kinds of "rights" that you supposedly have.
I stated succinctly what I bought "Sole access to my land with the ability to say who could be on it and what they could do there"
-
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
Oh, well, you do, as you have noted, allow public access to your "property." Mostly, I was commenting upon your use of the term "entitlement," which is, as I say, a kind of reactionary dog whistle.
It's interesting (see my subsequent post, above) that those who are most excitable about their so-called "property rights" make their argument, at least by analogy if not explicitly, by referencing RL property rights. I can't come into your RL house, so why should I be permitted to do so in SL?
But when it comes to the RL analogy over things like air space . . . well, we'll conveniently ignore the fact that in RL you do not "own" that. Equally, in RL, if you put something on your property that in some way impedes the use of the public infrastructure, well, you'd be told not to. But, again, that RL analogy is inconvenient, so we'll pretend that it isn't there. There's a certain inconsistency in the whole idea of "property rights" and, indeed, "property," as it is often employed in these argument, wouldn't you agree?
No where I have I referenced rl arguments, I suggest you change your diatribe that someone that does that. As I said in my previous post
"I pay for my land so I have total control of who is allowed there and what they can do. The fact I choose mostly to leave it open as long as people are respectful is neither here nor there"
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
You do not "own land": you are paying LL for enhanced access to a particular set of data and code
Absolutely wrong
You do not "own land" yes I agree.
After that you go totally wrong
You are paying LL for sole access to a particular set of data and code where you can decide exactly who can access it and what they can do there.
The fact that someone who pays the lab nothing for the access to that land but feels they should be able to degrade the experience of the one that does pay for sole access is undoubtedly the entitled one
There is nothing stopping you fliers from renting land and creating air corridors you can fly through. However you don't want to do that instead you want to take away what others pay for.
I pay for my land so I have total control of who is allowed there and what they can do. The fact I choose mostly to leave it open as long as people are respectful is neither here nor there
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
"Entitlement" is such an interesting word, isn't it?
It has become one of those coded terms, like "illegals" or "expert" or "elites" or even, in the US, "liberal" that has come to take on quiet, additional meetings with a heavy ideological cast. In my experience, "entitlement" is usually a term employed by those who have things, and are deeply if somewhat irrationally resentful that those who don't should be granted something that they themselves don't need. Like social assistance, for instance. These words are essentially dog-whistles.
In the context of SL "land rights," I've seen very very few people argue that they should be allowed to sit on your virtual couch, or use your virtual sex bed, without permission. What they do feel "entitled" to is the relatively unfettered use of what are either essentially public areas -- such as infrastructure, roads and so forth -- or water and land space. They don't want to come into your house: they want to avoid being crashed by it.
You could, I suppose, make the counter argument that the truly "entitled" ones here are those who believe that paying an extra sum to Linden Lab gives them the right to infringe upon other's enjoyment of the platform by making the use of such areas more difficult. You've laid done some extra money, and, hey, that means it's your right to do anything you like with it! Even if that entails making life miserable for those who are riding their scooters, or their planes, or their boats, through areas that do not in the least bit intrude upon your "privacy" (another coded word!).
ETA: I just live to amuse Solar! I like to think that he reads my posts over his morning coffee with the same gusto that someone else might open the comics section of their newspaper!
You're welcome!
Where have I said anything apart they should be able to restrict entry to their land. I never claimed they should block access to public areas. Air space over your land is not a public area by definition.
As far as I know if someones orb is configured to overlap a water or road way then you can ar it and get the Lab to do something about it which is fair enough. If a landowner sets the orb that way then it is them with the sense of entitlement.
As I have pointed out before as well people overflying your land absolutely 100% invade privacy of the landowner. It completely negates the point of the avatars on this parcel cannot be seen checkmark for a start
-
6 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:
It could be due to your attitude on the forum. People come to see the bears in their cage.
If you look up my profile you will find nothing there that leads to anyone being able to trace my home. As to my attitude on the forums.....well when people stop feeling entitled to what others pay for and stop looking down their nose at people who don't choose to be premium then you will find my attitude much improves as those are the two subjects that tend to raise my hackles here
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:
(On the other hand, if all the functions that operate "security" suddenly, silently altogether quit working, I think it would go unnoticed for months by the vast majority of the folks who pride themselves on how private they keep their parcels.)
doubtful, I live on a private estate with no estates or clubs and isnt searchable and been like that for 4 years at least, still get randoms tp in that no one knows every couple of days. I think people will notice pretty quickly when strangers drop in
-
29 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:
Those rules are defined by the platform service provider and constrained by Covenant and Estate/Region settings. There's no, like, "property rights" involved here. The "rules" are merely a bunch of options designed to maximize LL's profits by encouraging "land" buyers and reducing the need to deal with governance issues.
This was starkly demonstrated when the Lab completely disabled whitelist banlines on Bellisseria and strictly limited what was permissible scripted security. Of course this is anathema to those owners who revel in "my virtual land, my god-given right to set the rules" but the new continent enjoys demand unmatched since at least 2007.
Granting less control over the fate of trespassers on their land is evidently the overwhelming preference of Premium landowners. Or at the very least, it's not a deal breaker for a huge number of them.
Obviously within the bounds that the lab sets, the landowners she is whinging about are setting rules within the limits the lab sets. Now while she is perfectly well allowed to ask the lab to change the rules I suspect the asking will be ignored as the lab knows they would get a fierce backlash from land renters if they changed the rules retrospectively. Bellerissia is a special case because there were no landowners there when those rules were imposed. I also suspect its the latter of your statements that the desire for this houseboat thing outweighed, for those that chose a home there, the lack of security.
A retrospective land rule change however would provoke a certain amount of fury.
Note my holding uses neither ban lines nor any security if people are wondering if I am arguing from a certain position. I let people wander freely as long as they do respectfully
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:
I gotta make up a logical explanation since you aren't providing any.
What makes you think you deserve any explanation logical or not? Land owner gets to set the rules and why they do so is no business of yours. Your reference to the greater good is nothing of the sort what you meant was "I don't care that you pay for your land, I should be able to still use it waaah waaah its not fair I am going to squeal to mommy Linden"
-
2
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Inara Pey said:
I would suggest calling Sansar a "failure" at this point in time is perhaps an over-statement. Rather, I'd say that, success or failure, it's far too early in the day to judge - thanks in part of Sansar being publicly launched far too prematurely, most likely as a result of the Lab buying into all the over-blown hype around VR (such as pundits claiming it would be a $70 billion a year industry by now *coughs*).
Sansar has been launched 2 years, it has been on steam for 7 months. It still has no userbase. How long does too early to tell actually last in your mind?
Sorry Sansar has failed. No one that has tried it and gone meh is ever coming back. Those that haven't tried it yet had even less interest.
Please oh wise one tell us exactly how long we have to wait before we can point at Sansar and legitimately call it a failure, a waste of time , talent and money?
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
there is a sim called haven games, they dont sell games so I am not advertising. They are merely a sim where you can goto play games. If you look round there you can see a lot of different games and try them out to see which you like. Just search haven games in places
-
2
-
-
57 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
Going to a club where there is no open chat is . . . well, I hate it. One of my favourite blues clubs from maybe 6 years ago or so, which used to be a really great place for social chatter, has just gone silent now: everything is in IM. And the problem, to some extent, is that the nature of chat in IM tends to be different. When you are in open chat, things can get a little wild or even flirtatious, but it's still public, and so there isn't that feeling I sometimes get when a guy I don't know IMs me, and I suddenly feel, for want of a better word, trapped. Without public chat, I tend to feel lost: for whatever reason, I almost never initiate IMs with someone I don't know (I'm not sure why: I'm not generally a wallflower), and as a result I rely for conversation on those who IM me. And they, almost invariably, are men who are chatting me up, which I am just totally not interested in. So, basically, the only kind of conversation I get offered in such places is of a nature that I frankly hate.
While I am certainly not claiming this is mostly true, in fact I have no doubt it is mostly true. I wonder if sometimes maybe you are a little quick on the trigger. I don't mean that nastily but I am a guy and if I am dancing in a club on my own I will profile perv. If I see something in a profile that interests me I will open an im and strike up a conversation. Not to flirt because I am not currently interested, merely to chat. I have found some good friends that way. However more often than not I have to fight my through everything I say being filtered through a "He is flirting with me in the hopes of getting me in to bed" mentality. Not every guy that im's you is going to be flirting sometimes its just curiousity and it would be nice sometimes if people waited to see before assuming so I dont have to spend the first 20 minutes of conversation trying to convince them that no I really am not trying to get them in bed merely trying to find out more about what caught my eye
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
Such a delicate soul you are, Kanry!
I passed people wearing less than this walking my dog down my street in RL a half hour ago.
I am from a very sheltered background what can I say.....neck lines are neck high and never seen an ankle
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
I'm not a mermaid, but the beaches are quite nice. This one is "All Hours."
AND open to anyone. Really -- and I'm sure that there are residents who are reading this and blanching -- more people should take advantage of Bellisseria. It's quite a lovely build, and it already has a community going. It could become a kind of nexus, maybe, for a new wave of sociability in SL?
Oh, and the water is lovely, btw. I think we need to organize a forum beach party.
I couldnt possibly hang out with a girl with such scandalously scanty clothing .....nods
-
3
-
-
On 7/15/2019 at 3:28 PM, RachelWales said:
Then, you verify age for Adult sites only. In Moderate sites they shouldn't be do anything that would land them in jail. There are other gaming sites on the net that don't exclude age groups.
Just no, why the hell should we all have to verify just because you feel younger players should be allowed onto sl. That is after all what your suggestion leads to. Moderate sites are allowed to have sex on them as well, merely it cannot be in the open. SL had age verification once and they dropped it. Given all the furore over people not wanting to have to verify identity due to tilia you really think age verification is going to fly
-
1
-
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Security Orb Creators and Owners
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Of course they are victims, they are victims of their governement but the fact remains a right you can't enforce isn't a right.
That is after all the crux of your argument about land here....they aren't rights because the lab can take them away from us